The ruling raises questions about the legal jurisdiction of the family court in St. Tammany and Washington parishes. It’s already being challenged in the state Supreme Court, and is under scrutiny by Louisiana lawmakers.

The fallout could force thousands of divorced couples back in to court.

What started as a family court argument over a vehicle in the wake of a divorce has sparked a legal debate over the jurisdiction of family court in the 22nd Judicial District.

Although it’s not unanimous, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October that "The (22nd JDC) District court is without authority to establish its own jurisdiction by local rule,” and further stated,”the family divisions of the 22nd Judicial District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the issues in dispute."

“It seems like there is, there was a question of: ‘Does the family court deal with issues of separate property?’ Or you know, in cases if there was a prenuptial agreement or something like that,” said state Rep. Kevin Pearson, R-Slidell.

Six years ago, the state Legislature enabled two new judgeships in the 22nd Judicial District with limited jurisdiction to deal with family and juvenile matters.

But apparently, there was no companion legislation spelling out exactly what the scope of their jurisdiction would be, including certain issues of property.

Last week, the state Supreme Court decided to hear arguments in the case. Both sides in the divorce case will argue their contentions.

But how the high court might rule could have far-reaching effects beyond that single case and more than one group with a vested interest in that decision wants its voice heard.

The 22nd Judicial District Bar Association has filed a motion and memorandum with the state Supreme Court claiming, “The First Circuit's ruling in this recent matter as practically applied would bring mass confusion, increased costs for attorneys and litigants alike.”

Taking certain property matters out of family court would "cause the vast majority of attorneys and their clients to litigate in multiple courtrooms in multiple proceedings, frustrating the administration of justice for all involved," the bar association said.

Pearson said he shares that concern.

“You would go to the family court to deal with issues such as divorce and the children, how that goes and everything, and then all of a sudden do you need to go another, file another suit or another case, and go see another judge? I mean that really is a component of it,” he said.

Just as concerned, Operation SAVE has made a similar request to the state Supreme Court and believe the 1st Circuit Court is right.

“We think the sponsors of this bill, this legislation made a mistake in not drafting it completely and thoroughly,” Prejean said.

Formed just this past June, Operation SAVE is made up of scores of parents who feel they’ve been victimized in the 22nd Judicial District’s family court – most wishing to remain anonymous.

The group has filed a motion and memorandum with the state Supreme Court, asking to be heard in support of the 1st Circuit ruling.

“We believe the law does not grant the authority for those divisions of the court to hear these family law matters,” said Steven Prejean, an attorney for Operation SAVE. “If the Supreme Court agrees with the First Circuit, you have hundreds or literally thousands of cases, rulings that could be invalidated.”

However, in its brief to the state Supreme Court, Operation SAVE claims the local family court has stepped well beyond just the scope of property issues.

"The mismanagement of support, custody, and visitation cases in the 22nd JDC family court, and the associated financial devastation inflicted on parents there, causes irreparable injury,” Operation SAVE said.

Family court in the 22nd Judicial Court is a two-tiered system, with hearing officers handling the cases first before they go to a judge. Hearing officers can urge mediation, counseling, evaluation, parenting coordination, drug testing and substance abuse treatment.

In its memorandum to the state Supreme Court, Operation SAVE contends the “procedural network fosters vexatious litigation, and when the litigants are left with no more money, they are not only completely destitute but helpless at the mercy of this system."

“It's very expensive. Most of the people that I know are over $100,000 in litigation … in family court,” said Operation SAVE co-founder Keely Crozat.

“There are numerous people who have sold property, mortgaged their property, just to pay for the cost of getting a divorce in St. Tammany and going through child custody,” said Operation SAVE parent Johnny Cox.

The entire matter will now be heard by the state Supreme Court, possibly in March.

In the meantime, Pearson is drawing up legislation to fix the state law.

“What we're simply trying to do in legislation is really to clarify something that we thought was expressly intent, of intent to begin with, and it's just clarifying the issue for the future,” he said.

“I don't think you can cure it retroactively,” Prejean said. ”I think you can pass another statute, new legislation that would remedy it prospectively, but I don't think you can go back and retroactively undo all this.”

The local bar association preferred no on-camera comment while the matter is before the state Supreme Court. WDSU also offered the opportunity for comment to the judges of the 22nd judicial district, including both family court judges. They, too, reserved comment while the high court hears the case.

The state Supreme Court has already requested the case files from both appeal courts and state court.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday that a proposed agreement between world powers and Iran was "a bad deal" that would not stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons -- but would rather pave its way to getting lots of them and lea...